Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated term pregnancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to evaluate the risks of maternal and perinatal morbidity associated with induction of labour in uncomplicated term pregnancies. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including 7,430 women, not referred from another institution, with a single baby in vertex presentation, and delivering between 38 and 40 weeks of pregnancy. Among these women, 3,546 were excluded for prelabour pregnancy complications. Relative risks (RR), adjusted for parity, were computed to compare 3,353 women who went into labour spontaneously with 531 women whose labour was induced. Induction of labour was found to be associated with a higher risk of caesarean section [RR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.8, 3.4]. Use of non-epidural [RR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.2, 1.8] and of epidural analgesia [RR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.1, 1.7] was more frequent after labour induction. Resuscitation [RR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.0, 1.5], admission to the intensive care unit [RR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.0, 2.4] and phototherapy [RR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.0, 1.6] were more frequent after induction of labour. Results were similar when controlling simultaneously for parity, maternal age, gestational age, year of delivery, birthweight and the physician in charge of delivery in a logistic regression analysis. The results of this study suggests that induction of labour is associated with a higher risk of caesarean section and of some perinatal adverse outcomes. Induction of labour should be reserved for cases where maternal and perinatal benefits outweigh the risk of these complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".